Fasted cardio?
Options
Finafoshizzle93
Posts: 157 Member
Anyone have any anecdotal success with "faster" fat loss by incorporating fasted cardio?
2
Replies
-
The only way fasted cardio is going to make you lose weight faster is if you do it first thing in the morning instead of eating breakfast. And don't otherwise adjust your eating.0
-
Finafoshizzle93 wrote: »Anyone have any anecdotal success with "faster" fat loss by incorporating fasted cardio?
That's not how fat loss works.
The fuel you use during exercise or whether that exercise is partially fuelled from food just eaten or eaten and stored at some point in the past isn't what's important - it's your long term calorie balance.
If training fasted suits you then great, it gives you more scheduling options, some people may feel and perform better.
If it doesn't suit you then your exercise performance and calorie burn from your exercise will also drop.3 -
Finafoshizzle93 wrote: »Anyone have any anecdotal success with "faster" fat loss by incorporating fasted cardio?
That's not how fat loss works.
The fuel you use during exercise or whether that exercise is partially fuelled from food just eaten or eaten and stored at some point in the past isn't what's important - it's your long term calorie balance.
If training fasted suits you then great, it gives you more scheduling options, some people may feel and perform better.
If it doesn't suit you then your exercise performance and calorie burn from your exercise will also drop.
I saw something on You Tube recently suggesting Fasted Cardio increased results and it reminded me of something I read 20 years ago and would so do it occasionally mainly due to preferring not to eat first thing rather than for any expected benefit
Now my understanding of how we fuel exercise is limited but don't we use carbs from muscle first then from the stomach and then from fat stores? If that is correct (More than happy to be stood corrected) then if you are able to work out for long enough then wouldn't there be extra fat loss if in a fasted state? I know from cycle rides my performance would drop if I don't take on fuel during the ride so I certainly try and avoid that state now.
1 -
Finafoshizzle93 wrote: »Anyone have any anecdotal success with "faster" fat loss by incorporating fasted cardio?
That's not how fat loss works.
The fuel you use during exercise or whether that exercise is partially fuelled from food just eaten or eaten and stored at some point in the past isn't what's important - it's your long term calorie balance.
If training fasted suits you then great, it gives you more scheduling options, some people may feel and perform better.
If it doesn't suit you then your exercise performance and calorie burn from your exercise will also drop.
I saw something on You Tube recently suggesting Fasted Cardio increased results and it reminded me of something I read 20 years ago and would so do it occasionally mainly due to preferring not to eat first thing rather than for any expected benefit
Now my understanding of how we fuel exercise is limited but don't we use carbs from muscle first then from the stomach and then from fat stores? If that is correct (More than happy to be stood corrected) then if you are able to work out for long enough then wouldn't there be extra fat loss if in a fasted state? I know from cycle rides my performance would drop if I don't take on fuel during the ride so I certainly try and avoid that state now.
If someone has a 500 calorie deficit and trains fasted and the next person also has a 500 calorie deficit and trains fueled, they're going to both lose about 1 Lb per week...net fat loss won't be any different. The fuel you're using for a particular activity is irrelevant as you are always cycling between fat oxidation and storage...your net fat loss is going to come down to your deficit.
2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Finafoshizzle93 wrote: »Anyone have any anecdotal success with "faster" fat loss by incorporating fasted cardio?
That's not how fat loss works.
The fuel you use during exercise or whether that exercise is partially fuelled from food just eaten or eaten and stored at some point in the past isn't what's important - it's your long term calorie balance.
If training fasted suits you then great, it gives you more scheduling options, some people may feel and perform better.
If it doesn't suit you then your exercise performance and calorie burn from your exercise will also drop.
I saw something on You Tube recently suggesting Fasted Cardio increased results and it reminded me of something I read 20 years ago and would so do it occasionally mainly due to preferring not to eat first thing rather than for any expected benefit
Now my understanding of how we fuel exercise is limited but don't we use carbs from muscle first then from the stomach and then from fat stores? If that is correct (More than happy to be stood corrected) then if you are able to work out for long enough then wouldn't there be extra fat loss if in a fasted state? I know from cycle rides my performance would drop if I don't take on fuel during the ride so I certainly try and avoid that state now.
If someone has a 500 calorie deficit and trains fasted and the next person also has a 500 calorie deficit and trains fueled, they're going to both lose about 1 Lb per week...net fat loss won't be any different. The fuel you're using for a particular activity is irrelevant as you are always cycling between fat oxidation and storage...your net fat loss is going to come down to your deficit.
Isn't that assuming all weight loss is fat though?
What about those maintaining the same weight? Would they be able to lose fat in this way?
Would it not be possible in that scenario for 2lbs of fat to be lost and a lb of muscle gained?
Only asking out of curiosity rather than to prove people wrong as I am certainly not an expert.2 -
Yeah, obviously the calorie deficit is what causes the weight loss. More curious about the makeup I guess of the weight lost (maintaining muscle/losing fat).0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Finafoshizzle93 wrote: »Anyone have any anecdotal success with "faster" fat loss by incorporating fasted cardio?
That's not how fat loss works.
The fuel you use during exercise or whether that exercise is partially fuelled from food just eaten or eaten and stored at some point in the past isn't what's important - it's your long term calorie balance.
If training fasted suits you then great, it gives you more scheduling options, some people may feel and perform better.
If it doesn't suit you then your exercise performance and calorie burn from your exercise will also drop.
I saw something on You Tube recently suggesting Fasted Cardio increased results and it reminded me of something I read 20 years ago and would so do it occasionally mainly due to preferring not to eat first thing rather than for any expected benefit
Now my understanding of how we fuel exercise is limited but don't we use carbs from muscle first then from the stomach and then from fat stores? If that is correct (More than happy to be stood corrected) then if you are able to work out for long enough then wouldn't there be extra fat loss if in a fasted state? I know from cycle rides my performance would drop if I don't take on fuel during the ride so I certainly try and avoid that state now.
If someone has a 500 calorie deficit and trains fasted and the next person also has a 500 calorie deficit and trains fueled, they're going to both lose about 1 Lb per week...net fat loss won't be any different. The fuel you're using for a particular activity is irrelevant as you are always cycling between fat oxidation and storage...your net fat loss is going to come down to your deficit.
Isn't that assuming all weight loss is fat though?
What about those maintaining the same weight? Would they be able to lose fat in this way?
Would it not be possible in that scenario for 2lbs of fat to be lost and a lb of muscle gained?
Only asking out of curiosity rather than to prove people wrong as I am certainly not an expert.
It's possible, but unlikely.
You might change it from .7 lb of fat lost and .3 lb of lean mass lost to .72 or even .8 lb of fat lost and .2 lb of lean mass lost, but You're not going to change it from .7 lb of fat lost and .3 lb of lean mass lost to 2 lb fat lost 1 lb lean mass gained.0 -
Finafoshizzle93 wrote: »Yeah, obviously the calorie deficit is what causes the weight loss. More curious about the makeup I guess of the weight lost (maintaining muscle/losing fat).
Doesn't really matter for that...your overall diet, adequate calories, adequate protein, and resistance training is going to result in maintaining more muscle mass while you lose weight so that more of your weight loss would be fat vs muscle.cwolfman13 wrote: »Finafoshizzle93 wrote: »Anyone have any anecdotal success with "faster" fat loss by incorporating fasted cardio?
That's not how fat loss works.
The fuel you use during exercise or whether that exercise is partially fuelled from food just eaten or eaten and stored at some point in the past isn't what's important - it's your long term calorie balance.
If training fasted suits you then great, it gives you more scheduling options, some people may feel and perform better.
If it doesn't suit you then your exercise performance and calorie burn from your exercise will also drop.
I saw something on You Tube recently suggesting Fasted Cardio increased results and it reminded me of something I read 20 years ago and would so do it occasionally mainly due to preferring not to eat first thing rather than for any expected benefit
Now my understanding of how we fuel exercise is limited but don't we use carbs from muscle first then from the stomach and then from fat stores? If that is correct (More than happy to be stood corrected) then if you are able to work out for long enough then wouldn't there be extra fat loss if in a fasted state? I know from cycle rides my performance would drop if I don't take on fuel during the ride so I certainly try and avoid that state now.
If someone has a 500 calorie deficit and trains fasted and the next person also has a 500 calorie deficit and trains fueled, they're going to both lose about 1 Lb per week...net fat loss won't be any different. The fuel you're using for a particular activity is irrelevant as you are always cycling between fat oxidation and storage...your net fat loss is going to come down to your deficit.
Isn't that assuming all weight loss is fat though?
What about those maintaining the same weight? Would they be able to lose fat in this way?
Would it not be possible in that scenario for 2lbs of fat to be lost and a lb of muscle gained?
Only asking out of curiosity rather than to prove people wrong as I am certainly not an expert.
I've been in maintenance for 5 years and that hasn't been my experience. I've recomped (lose fat/build muscle) over that time very slowly...mostly a result of the work I do in the weight room. I cycle as well for my cardiovascular work...I do fasted in the summer because I ride early and fueled most other times of the year...haven't noticed any perceivable difference.1 -
I'll just leave this here, because science: https://weightology.net/fasted-cardio-an-undeserved-good-reputation/5
-
Finafoshizzle93 wrote: »Anyone have any anecdotal success with "faster" fat loss by incorporating fasted cardio?
That's not how fat loss works.
The fuel you use during exercise or whether that exercise is partially fuelled from food just eaten or eaten and stored at some point in the past isn't what's important - it's your long term calorie balance.
If training fasted suits you then great, it gives you more scheduling options, some people may feel and perform better.
If it doesn't suit you then your exercise performance and calorie burn from your exercise will also drop.
I saw something on You Tube recently suggesting Fasted Cardio increased results and it reminded me of something I read 20 years ago and would so do it occasionally mainly due to preferring not to eat first thing rather than for any expected benefit
Now my understanding of how we fuel exercise is limited but don't we use carbs from muscle first then from the stomach and then from fat stores? If that is correct (More than happy to be stood corrected) then if you are able to work out for long enough then wouldn't there be extra fat loss if in a fasted state? I know from cycle rides my performance would drop if I don't take on fuel during the ride so I certainly try and avoid that state now.
@ap1972
No that's not how it works, you don't use fuels sequentially. People look at the exercising muscle and ignore the total body expenditure....
In reality for the vast majority of the time you are exercising you are using a blend of fuels and that blend is dependant on exercise intensity primarily. The lower the activity / exercise the higher proportion of fat is being used (but remember a low calorie burn rate).
Gentle zone 3 is about 50/50 fat and carbs for me for example - my all day cycling pace.
As you have enough carbs onboard in the form of glycogen (muscle and liver mostly) for about two hours intense exercise it's pretty irrelevant for the majority of people whether you are fasted or not.
And if you have ever bonked (complete glycogen depletion) you would know that at that point exercise stops with crushing fatigue and mental confusion!
I don't fuel any bike rides under two hours, it just fits in my day. It's only for rides approx 60 miles and over I get serious about more precise fuelling.
What fasted cardio can do is make you better at fasted cardio as you do adapt to it. But still weight loss is down to calories not fuels. For weight loss it doesn't matter when you ingested your carb/fat fuels, just now, today, yesterday, last week - same as filling up your car's fuel tank the fuel level depends on the amount of fuel put in and fuel used, not when you topped up.
2 -
I've been on keto for a month now. I started intermittent fasting about 3 weeks ago and I feel amazing. 3 days ago I started running with my dog during my fast and I feel even better.3
-
It's actually been studied OP, though the great comments above share some more info.
http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/performing-cardio-on-an-empty-stomach/
http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/my-new-study-on-fasted-cardio-and-fat-loss-take-home-points/
0 -
Finafoshizzle93 wrote: »Anyone have any anecdotal success with "faster" fat loss by incorporating fasted cardio?
That's not how fat loss works.
The fuel you use during exercise or whether that exercise is partially fuelled from food just eaten or eaten and stored at some point in the past isn't what's important - it's your long term calorie balance.
If training fasted suits you then great, it gives you more scheduling options, some people may feel and perform better.
If it doesn't suit you then your exercise performance and calorie burn from your exercise will also drop.
I saw something on You Tube recently suggesting Fasted Cardio increased results and it reminded me of something I read 20 years ago and would so do it occasionally mainly due to preferring not to eat first thing rather than for any expected benefit
Now my understanding of how we fuel exercise is limited but don't we use carbs from muscle first then from the stomach and then from fat stores? If that is correct (More than happy to be stood corrected) then if you are able to work out for long enough then wouldn't there be extra fat loss if in a fasted state? I know from cycle rides my performance would drop if I don't take on fuel during the ride so I certainly try and avoid that state now.
@ap1972
No that's not how it works, you don't use fuels sequentially. People look at the exercising muscle and ignore the total body expenditure....
In reality for the vast majority of the time you are exercising you are using a blend of fuels and that blend is dependant on exercise intensity primarily. The lower the activity / exercise the higher proportion of fat is being used (but remember a low calorie burn rate).
Gentle zone 3 is about 50/50 fat and carbs for me for example - my all day cycling pace.
As you have enough carbs onboard in the form of glycogen (muscle and liver mostly) for about two hours intense exercise it's pretty irrelevant for the majority of people whether you are fasted or not.
And if you have ever bonked (complete glycogen depletion) you would know that at that point exercise stops with crushing fatigue and mental confusion!
I don't fuel any bike rides under two hours, it just fits in my day. It's only for rides approx 60 miles and over I get serious about more precise fuelling.
What fasted cardio can do is make you better at fasted cardio as you do adapt to it. But still weight loss is down to calories not fuels. For weight loss it doesn't matter when you ingested your carb/fat fuels, just now, today, yesterday, last week - same as filling up your car's fuel tank the fuel level depends on the amount of fuel put in and fuel used, not when you topped up.
Interesting you can go for 2 hours in a fasted state, when I was cycling regularly I would start to suffer after an hour or so. If I have breakfast before my ride that point would probably be 30-45 mins later so I would generally fuel as I went for anything over an hour unless I was trying to improve my fasted state performance. In those days cycling was primarily for fun and not for weight loss so I wasn't even considering whether it had an impact on burning fat.
The car analogy is a little off as the fuel tank (Our stomach) is the only source of fuel and cannot be allowed to run out whereas our body uses energy stored in multiple ways all of which are replenished in different ways.
If you exercise in a fasted state and burn 1000 calories causing a loss of 0.2 lb of fat and then eat 1000 calories when and how does that fat get replaced?0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Finafoshizzle93 wrote: »Anyone have any anecdotal success with "faster" fat loss by incorporating fasted cardio?
That's not how fat loss works.
The fuel you use during exercise or whether that exercise is partially fuelled from food just eaten or eaten and stored at some point in the past isn't what's important - it's your long term calorie balance.
If training fasted suits you then great, it gives you more scheduling options, some people may feel and perform better.
If it doesn't suit you then your exercise performance and calorie burn from your exercise will also drop.
I saw something on You Tube recently suggesting Fasted Cardio increased results and it reminded me of something I read 20 years ago and would so do it occasionally mainly due to preferring not to eat first thing rather than for any expected benefit
Now my understanding of how we fuel exercise is limited but don't we use carbs from muscle first then from the stomach and then from fat stores? If that is correct (More than happy to be stood corrected) then if you are able to work out for long enough then wouldn't there be extra fat loss if in a fasted state? I know from cycle rides my performance would drop if I don't take on fuel during the ride so I certainly try and avoid that state now.
If someone has a 500 calorie deficit and trains fasted and the next person also has a 500 calorie deficit and trains fueled, they're going to both lose about 1 Lb per week...net fat loss won't be any different. The fuel you're using for a particular activity is irrelevant as you are always cycling between fat oxidation and storage...your net fat loss is going to come down to your deficit.
Isn't that assuming all weight loss is fat though?
What about those maintaining the same weight? Would they be able to lose fat in this way?
Would it not be possible in that scenario for 2lbs of fat to be lost and a lb of muscle gained?
Only asking out of curiosity rather than to prove people wrong as I am certainly not an expert.
It's possible, but unlikely.
You might change it from .7 lb of fat lost and .3 lb of lean mass lost to .72 or even .8 lb of fat lost and .2 lb of lean mass lost, but You're not going to change it from .7 lb of fat lost and .3 lb of lean mass lost to 2 lb fat lost 1 lb lean mass gained.
Thanks, I realised the example I gave would be dramatically more than was likely but interesting that the possible difference would be so marginal0 -
My only addition, given how many times this subject has been discussed, is to remember that what happens in the body as an acute response to exercise is temporary, not permanent. Your body runs 24/7/365/life—what happens during the 60 or so minutes you work out is just a blip on the metabolic radar. So even if all the myths about fasted cardio were true, the overall effect would still be insignificant.2
-
I'll just leave this here, because science: https://weightology.net/fasted-cardio-an-undeserved-good-reputation/
Whoever wooed this comment is a total dumbass, BTW.
6 -
I do fasted cardio every morning. I have lost, maintained, and gained weight. I don't think it matters..1
-
DancingMoosie wrote: »I do fasted cardio every morning. I have lost, maintained, and gained weight. I don't think it matters..
Same, I never really saw a correlation.0 -
I enjoy fasted cardio just bc I don't feel as sluggish. I haven't seen it drastically impact my loss.0
-
Ref the bold.....Finafoshizzle93 wrote: »Anyone have any anecdotal success with "faster" fat loss by incorporating fasted cardio?
That's not how fat loss works.
The fuel you use during exercise or whether that exercise is partially fuelled from food just eaten or eaten and stored at some point in the past isn't what's important - it's your long term calorie balance.
If training fasted suits you then great, it gives you more scheduling options, some people may feel and perform better.
If it doesn't suit you then your exercise performance and calorie burn from your exercise will also drop.
I saw something on You Tube recently suggesting Fasted Cardio increased results and it reminded me of something I read 20 years ago and would so do it occasionally mainly due to preferring not to eat first thing rather than for any expected benefit
Now my understanding of how we fuel exercise is limited but don't we use carbs from muscle first then from the stomach and then from fat stores? If that is correct (More than happy to be stood corrected) then if you are able to work out for long enough then wouldn't there be extra fat loss if in a fasted state? I know from cycle rides my performance would drop if I don't take on fuel during the ride so I certainly try and avoid that state now.
@ap1972
No that's not how it works, you don't use fuels sequentially. People look at the exercising muscle and ignore the total body expenditure....
In reality for the vast majority of the time you are exercising you are using a blend of fuels and that blend is dependant on exercise intensity primarily. The lower the activity / exercise the higher proportion of fat is being used (but remember a low calorie burn rate).
Gentle zone 3 is about 50/50 fat and carbs for me for example - my all day cycling pace.
As you have enough carbs onboard in the form of glycogen (muscle and liver mostly) for about two hours intense exercise it's pretty irrelevant for the majority of people whether you are fasted or not.
And if you have ever bonked (complete glycogen depletion) you would know that at that point exercise stops with crushing fatigue and mental confusion!
I don't fuel any bike rides under two hours, it just fits in my day. It's only for rides approx 60 miles and over I get serious about more precise fuelling.
What fasted cardio can do is make you better at fasted cardio as you do adapt to it. But still weight loss is down to calories not fuels. For weight loss it doesn't matter when you ingested your carb/fat fuels, just now, today, yesterday, last week - same as filling up your car's fuel tank the fuel level depends on the amount of fuel put in and fuel used, not when you topped up.
Interesting you can go for 2 hours in a fasted state, when I was cycling regularly I would start to suffer after an hour or so. If I have breakfast before my ride that point would probably be 30-45 mins later so I would generally fuel as I went for anything over an hour unless I was trying to improve my fasted state performance. In those days cycling was primarily for fun and not for weight loss so I wasn't even considering whether it had an impact on burning fat.
The car analogy is a little off as the fuel tank (Our stomach) is the only source of fuel and cannot be allowed to run out whereas our body uses energy stored in multiple ways all of which are replenished in different ways.
If you exercise in a fasted state and burn 1000 calories causing a loss of 0.2 lb of fat and then eat 1000 calories when and how does that fat get replaced?
From your next meal.
You are shuttling fat into storage and taking it out of storage multiple times a day. It's the balance that matters.
It's part of the reason to look outside the exercise period and put it in context of the day/week/month.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions